File 4535/1928 Pt 8 ‘ – PERSIAN GULF – QUESTION OF ESTABLISHMENT OF PROTECTORATES OVER KOWEIT, BAHREIN, MUSCAT, TRUCIAL COAST.’ [‎65r] (123/194)

III.
-Internal History of Muscat from Accession of Sultan Taimur
4th October 1913 to 1928.
t 1 el. from Viceroy
to S. of S. for I.,
Oct. 20 1913,
P. 4318/13.
X F.O. to I.O.,
Oct. 31 1913,
P. 4518.
§ M. Gambon to
Sir E. Grey, Nov. 13
1913, P. 4739/13.
F.O. to I.O.. Nov. 2#
1913, P. 4739.
had 1 in 0D „ 4th f ° Ct0ber 1913 * Hi* son, Saiyid Taimur, * r. .m/,3.
J . practice, if not formally, for some years previously been recogniseil
^ as heir apparent,! an 'l while His Majesty’s Government had in the past in
Muscat postponed recognition of a successor until they were satisfied^hat a
particular claimant was assured of the general support of the more important
■elements and could be regarded as the de facto ruler, the demise of the late
bultan at a time when the interior was in a state of revolt, die ™
necessity of establishing a fresh administrative centre, and the fact that
nrTl/T 1 ' 1 'l- T a S fllInll,ar "'V' 1 the P° lic y of his predecessor, and could
p obably be iehed upon to follow that policy in the vital matter of the
arms traffic, decided them in favour of his immediate recognition + This
the I olitical Agent was authorised to convey to the Saiyid in November 1913
1 he rench Government, who had suggested that the two Governments
reconnaissent en meme temps the new ruler, § were informed that while
His Majesty s Government, as they had already indicated, adhered to the
Declaration of 1862, it was their usual practice to recognise the de facto
ruler, and that they had accordingly already authorised the Government of
India to take this step in the case of Sultan Taimur, especially as they
■understood that the French Consul at Muscat only awaited the receipt of
behalTofFrance 18 Bntlsh collea S ue h "»self to accord official recognition on
19. But the recognition had not been unconditional. The new Sultan
had been required as a prior condition to state that he accepted all the
obligations which Ins father bore towards His Majesty’s Government and
t lat m regard to the arms traffic as well as other matters he intended to
pursue his iather s policy, and undertook “ to be guided by our advice in all
important matters. ; And, immediate recognition having been oranted
by iiis Majesty s Government on compliance by the Saiyid with these
preliminary demands, further requirements were presented to him as a
-condition of the continuance of the subsidies granted to his predecessor.
20. Of these subsidies the Zanzibar subsidy was one the precise
conditions antecedent to the grant of which are a matter of some dispute IT
It would, however appear that those conditions are that a Sultan should be
acknowledged by His Majesty’s Government and should promise friendship
and the maintenance of his treaty obligations, and that subject to this he might
prefer an absolute claim. The arms traffic subsidy of Rs. 1 lakh One lakh is equal to one hundred thousand rupees per annum
had however, been personal to Sultan Feisal, and, while it was essential
that the new mler should afford the co-operation in the suppression of the
trade to secure which it had been granted, he could prefer no claim to it as
of right.
21. After lengthy discussion between the Government of India, the India
Office and the Foreign Office, it was finally decided that the Sultan should
be required as a condition of the regrant of the subsidies to agree to postpone
for live years, or such shorter period as His Majesty’s Government might desire
the revision of the Commercial Treaty of 1891®*; a decision being deferred
pending lurther examination on two connected questions—the assent of His
Highness to the establishment of a Muscat Levy Corps, and his agreement
to conclude no further treaties with foreign Powers without the consent of
His Majesty s Government. The second of these questions was one which
had arisen towards the close of the reign of Sultan Faisaltt, the disposal of
which presented political difficulties owing to the position of France vis-a-vis
the State, and which was still under examination when the outbreak of the
mi ope.m \ ar m August 1914 made its immediate pursuit unnecessary.±t
It has not been revived For various reasons the proposal to raise a Muscat
Levy Gorps To which the Foreign Office saw no political objection in 19I4SS
so long as the force was nominally a Muscat force and commanded by officers
nominally in the service of the Sultan) produced no result until 1921 (see
para. 31). v
22. ihe arms traffic subsidy was renewed without a verv clear definition
-ol the terms of its renewal, though the intention both of His Majesty’s
|| Tel. from Viceroy,
Dec. 23 1913,
P. 5152.
IF Cf. Lor. i, p. 500,
footnote.
** 1.0. to F.O.,
Dec. 31 1912; tel. to
Viceroy, Jan. 17
1914, P. 5152/13,
130/14.
tt I.O. to F.O.,
July 18 1911 ; F.O.
to I.O., Jan. 23 1914,
P. 5152.
XX F.O. to I.O.,
Doc. 31 1914,
P. 4695/14.
§§ F.O. to I.O.,
Jan. 23 1914,
P. 301/14.